Fragments.

A hundred and seventy-two fragments of Isaeos, or notices of phrases or words used by him, have been collected by Sauppe¹. Of these, 128 represent 42 speeches of known title. Three of the 42 were, however, suspected by Harpokration². Three others, and only three, are represented by fragments which are at all considerable. In each case it is Dionysios who has preserved the extract in his comparison of Isaeos with Lysias³ .

1. Against the Demesmen, concerning the Farm⁴ ( πρὸς τοὺς δημότας περὶ τοῦ χωρίου: VII. in Sauppe, III. in Scheibe). This is the proem of a speech in which the plaintiff claims back from the men of his deme—perhaps that of Sphettos⁵—a farm which he had just pledged to them—probably as security for some land of the deme which he had rented⁶. In form, the action would be either an Action for Ejectment ( ἐξούλης δίκη) or a Trial of a claim to property ( διαδικασία). The avoidance of hiatus suggests a ⁷ work later than 360 B.C.

2. Defence of a Guardian against his Wards⁸ ( ἐπιτροπῆς ἀπολογία: X. in Sauppe, VI. in Scheibe). Dionysios has given us two fragments of this lost speech⁹. Its title is a point which has illustrated ¹⁰ the ingenuity of critics. Sauppe identifies it with the lost speech Against Diophanes¹¹. More probably, however, it is to be identified with that Against Hagnotheos. The latter is mentioned by Dionysios ( Isae. c. 14), though not in connection with either of the fragments. Now the first fragment (c. 8) begins with these words:— ἐβουλόμην μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, μὴ λίαν οὕτως ἀγνοηθέντα πρὸς χρήματ’ ἔχειν αἰσχρῶς. Schömann, whom Sauppe follows, was for altering ἀγνοηθέντα to ἀπονοηθέντα. Dobree saw that the corrupt word concealed a proper name. He suggested Ἀγλαοσθένη: it was reserved for Cobet to give Ἁγνόθεον¹².

Another puzzle remains. Harpokration quotes ¹³ a speech of Isaeos, ἐξούλης Καλυδῶνι πρὸς Ἁγνόθεον ἀπολογία¹⁴, and elsewhere another, πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἐπιτροπῆς¹⁵—the latter also as πρὸς Καλυδῶνα simply. Combining these notices, Scheibe¹⁶ infers that Isaeos wrote (1) For Hagnotheos, a πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἐπιτροπῆς: (2) For Kalydon, a πρὸς Ἁγνόθεον ἐξούλης. Blass vindicates the loyalty of our orator by suggesting that Harpokration is to be emended; that we should read, s. v. Κεφαλῆθεν, πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἐξούλης (not ἐπιτροπῆς, for which ἐπιστολῆς is a variant), and s. v. ἐπισημαίνεσθαι, ἐν τῇ ἐξούλης πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἀπολογίᾳ, ( καὶ ἐν τῇ) πρὸς Ἁγνόθεον¹⁷. It would follow that Kalydon and Hagnotheos have nothing whatever to do with each other, and have been brought into relation by no depravity except that of a text. The character of the two fragments, especially in regard to the êthos, suggests a comparsion with Oration XI.

3. For Eumathes: an Assertion of a Slave's¹⁸ Freedom ( ὑπὲρ Εὐμάθους εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἀφαίρεσις: XVI. in Sauppe, XII. in Scheibe). Eumathes had been the slave of Epigenes, but had received his liberty from his master.

On the death of Epigenes, one of his heirs, Dionysios, acting for the rest¹⁹, claimed Eumathes as a slave. Xenokles came forward and asserted Eumathes to be a freedman. Dionysios then brought against Xenokles an action²⁰ for this assertion ( ἐξαιρέσεως δίκη). In this speech Xenokles defends himself, and reasserts the freedom of Eumathes.

The speaker says that he was trierarch in the ²¹ archonship of Kephisodotos²² (Ol. 105. 3, 358 B.C.); and mentions a sea-fight in which he was engaged. This was probably the battle at Chios in the first year of the Social War—357 B.C.—in which Chabrias was killed. The speech For Eumathes may probably be referred to 356 B.C.

4. Lastly, Dionysios has briefly analysed, though without quoting extracts, a speech ‘Against Aristogeiton and Archippos on the Estate of Archepolis²³.’ The speaker is the brother of the deceased Archepolis. Aristogeiton had already taken possession of the estate. The speaker had summoned him to make restitution ( εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν). Aristogeiton had then entered a special plea ( παραγραφή), asserting that the property was his under a will: and it was at the hearing of the special plea that this speech was delivered. The issue ( ἀμφισβήτησις) was thus twofold,—(1) whether the will is genuine, (2) whether Aristogeiton was justified in taking possession before a legal decision. Isaeos first dealt with (2); and then, in a narrative, showed that the will was fictitious. The speech is cited by Dionysios as an example of Isaean arrangement. One characteristic is the treatment of the second issue in a discussion prefixed to the narrative ( προκατασκευή): another is the artistic division of the narrative itself into sections, with the proofs subjoined to each.

Sir Richard C. Jebb The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos 2.21.11

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Fragments.

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers